ML20040A623

Responds to NRC 800426 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-440/80-05 & 50-441/80-05.Corrective Actions: Radiographic Review Revealed Porosity & Hot Tears in Two Valve Caps.Units Replaced by Ge.Final Resolution Rept Encl

ML20040A623
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/23/1981
From:	Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20040A619	List: ML20040A623
References
NUDOCS 8201210309
Download: ML20040A623 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _

o f

i l P o Hox 5000 e CLEVEL AND OHIO 44101 e TEL EPHONE (216) 622-9800 e ILLUMINATING BLDG e 55 PUBLIC SOUARE Dalwyn R. Davidson

,5> ?,;r:; [he 8t::;f L oc,)(: ort tr) the Nd[*on v>ce m wa Ni SYSTE M t NGINt i kNG AND CONsTHUCTiON December 23, 1981 1

fir . C. E. Norelius, Acting Director Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regicn III 799 Poosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 RE. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.

50-440, 50-441; Additional In forina tion Concerning Valves Supplied by Dikkers Valve Company, Netherlands lh'ar Mr. Norelius Please reference unresolved Inspection Item 440/80-05-01; 441/80-05-01 as documented by Mr. K. D. Ward of your office in his I.E. Report dated April 26, 1980 and also reported an a significant deficiency. All license resolution of this item has been completed and the attached report is being forwarded to your attention for any further act. ion deemed to be neces',ary by your staff.

This report also represents the pr sentation made to the national Board of Boiler and Pressure Ve: sel Inspectorn and to the State of Ohio for which w.: have received accetitance.

Please call if there are any additional questions.

Very truly yours,

~ /

40!4lJ dn. J&tull .

/O k

D. R. Davidson Vice President Systems Engineering and Construction DRD/ cap Attachment cc NRC - Site Mensrc B. L. Spessard K. U. ward C. C. Wi11iams U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission, Region III 7 e Roosevelt Fead Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 8 2U 1 % 1 Ohr i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Document Manaqcment Branch Q{C 3 } 19 3)

Washinoton, D. C. 20555

i, l

a

,e i

i FINAL RESOLUTION REPORT CON CERN ING VALVES SUPPLIED TO PNPP BY DIKKERS VALVE COMPANY, NETilERLANDS NRC INSPECTION UNRESOLVED ITEM NUMBER 440/80-05-01; 441/80-05-01 DECEMBER 18, 1981 J

/

l

Hudson Walls. Jr.

j

! The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Cc

l Sr. NDE Administrator l

O e

1. DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN ITF.M f On October 1,1980 an NRC inspection was conduc ted on si ty by Mr. K. Ward.

l

During this inspection, Mr. Ward randomly reviewed 16 assembly radiographs l

l of the 19 Perry I Dikkers Safety Relief Valves. Of the 16 assemblies l reviewed, he found a discrepancy rate of approximately 25%. These dis-crepancies consisted of items that did not meet the requirements of Section III of the ASME Code, such as, density requirements, masking of the parts, film location markers, penetrameter sizes, film artifacts and missing film.

Mr. Wards report idencified this concern as an " unresolved item" pending review by NRC.

Perry Site Organization personnel had previously reviewed 5 of the 19 radiographic packages 100% and had reached the same results as Mr. Ward.

I

11. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND RESULTS ACillEVED

'l 3

1. G. E. contracted the Nuclear Engineering Services Company to perform a e

+ '

. 100% review of PNPP Unit 1, 11 and spares safety relief valves manufactured by Dikkers Valve Company. The 100% film review helped confirm G.E.'s

'i continuation that the radiographic quality level was adequate for film I

interpretation and, in many instances, exceeded code requirements.

The Radiographic review revealed that two of the Perry valves contained

!' discontinuities; " Porosity" and "llot Tears" in the caps. These units I are to be returned to G.E. for replacement.

q

2. To satisfy questions relating to the dark density area of the inlet

. flange, G. E. and Wiley Labs developed a new technique, and re-radiographed l

1 i

I

'l p

L

y________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PAUK 2 O

20 of Grand Gulf Unit 1 SRV valves in areas (3 4-5) and (10-X-Y). *1h is If re-radiography was performed for information only to provide an additional I

level of confidence and did not reve.il any unacceptable discont inuities.

f The re-radiography substantiated G. E.'s statement that the valves are sound l in the heavy banded area.

.I

3. As par t of the original G. E. pr ocurement documenta, all valves were subjected to a 1.5X design pressure hydrostatic test and performance verification test under full steam and flow conditions. Each valve was determined operable and structural integrity was sound.

4 The raised adjusting bolt pads on approximately 80 valve bodies, similar l Lo those used at PNPP, were re-radiographed by the Dikkers Valve Company.

This re-radiography did not reveal any unacceptable discontinuities and I confirmed that the material casting process is sound. This leads to the i

conclusion that the valves nupplied for use at PNPP are also sound.

l S. Stress was calculated for PNPP Unit 1, 11 and spare safety relief valves. i

-l There was no indication of any region with excessive stress or inadequate t l thickness. In general, the stresses are well below the prescribed code I!

limits. For example, the calculated body wall thickness is 0.63 inch,

\

whereas the actual minimma wall thickness is 1.1 inches. The primary O stress at the crotch between inlet and outlet is 3, 493 PSI, comparing C

q to a code allowable of 18,900 PSI. The primary stress at the crotch between  ;

j bonnet and outlet le 4,524 PSI comparing to a code allowable of 18,900 4

I' PSI. This demonstrates thst there is significant excess margin in the valve design.

6. Where radicgraphs display density variations out of specification limits, a

PAW 3 the location on the casting is that of substantial extra thickness or of rapidly changing cross section, l

7. PNPP NDE personnel reviewed 1007. of 5 Dikkers radiographic packages each for Units 1, II and spares. The 15 packages totaled 1290 film equalling approximately 30*4 of the 57 packages for Perry. No rejectable indications were found.

l

8. In March 1981, the CEI Senior NDE Administrator performed a review of the new radiographic technique established by G. E. and Dikkers. lie re-viewed the new technique radiographs and reviewed the 20 re-radiographs of Grand Gulf Unit 1 Valves done by G.E. and Wiley Labs. Thc radiographs completed using the new technique indicated more radiographic coverage in

, those areas of question on the old radiographs. Some of Perry II and Perry Spares were re-radiographed at Dikkers using the new technique. A review of those film revealed extensive improvement over the old technique. All radiographs reviewed were acceptable.

9. In June 1981, two audit personnel visited G.E. San Jose and performed a document review on 10 of the Dikkers Document Packages for Perry. There were items of concern relating to the documents, that G.E. has assured corrections of before document package delivery. Overall, the document packages are in good order.

10. PNPP acknowledges that the Dikkers valves do not meet all code requirements relating to radiography, particularly in the areas where the casting is of substantial extra thickness or rapidly changing cross sections. Investi-gations made and actions taken clearly establish that only two Perry valves have rejectable material discontinuities. No rejectable discontinuities exist in the 55 other PNPP Dikkers safety relief valves. The Anomalies existing in the radiographic film will not affect safety.

t

PAGE 4

}, -

! III. ACTIONS TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE I

All Dikkers radiographs, except two packages of the relected valves have

.l l been received on site. l Ehould additional Dikkers radiographs be received from G.E. In the future, I'NPP intends to review 100% of the item.

G. E. had reported the following corrective action to PNPP:

1. Dikkers Valve Company had upgraded its QA and radiographic program to the satisf action of an NRC vendor compliance inspector. Additionally, in their letter dated May 28, 1981, General Electric provided assurance that the bankruptcy of Dikkers Valves Company of the Netherlands would

. not affect their ability to provide contractual warranty services for these valves.

2. G.E. held a training seminar and instructed 45 C.E. quality assurance field representatives on the QC requirements, including the interpretation of radiographs and code requirements. Also, G.E. Imposed densitometer scanning requirements for radiography density upon G.E.'s vendors on new purch.ase orders.

RESOLUTION As a result of the above investigation, we have determined that, although certain radiographs do not meet the ASME Code requirements, there would i

be no adverse effects on safety through their use at Perry Units 1 and 2.

I Therefore, we consider this " Unresolved Item" as resolved.

1

-- .-. -- .-